"His eyes are steely blue, and he gazed steadily at nothing, as he spoke in a weak, effeminate voice." --Washington Post November 18, 1890.”

Thanks for that. I don’t have that particular article in my files but will now look it up. I can now amend my earlier post to read –

In all my hundreds of Tumblety newspaper clippings I can find no indication that anyone stated that Tumblety spoke with a “woman’s voice.” RJ Palmer points out that a Washington Post article (18 November, 1890) says that Tumblety “spoke in a weak, effeminate voice,” but this is ONE article out of hundreds and proves very little. In fact his voice is rarely mentioned. One paper stated that “He hurriedly engaged a cab, gave the directions in a low voice and was driven away” [The New York World, 4 December, 1888]which doesn’t actually describe Tumblety’s normal voice. He was also said to speak “in a quick, nervous fashion,” [the New York World, 29 January, 1889] and more than one paper said he spoke with an English accent. IF Tumblety spoke with an unusually high voice I’m surprised that this “fact” only surfaced once in all the decades that Tumblety appeared in newspapers.

Are you the only one posting here? Or are you just ignoring what others have said?

Quote:

Again.... who said that "the argument is made that offering money for testimony would be unthinkable. That seems incredibly naive. " or are you just putting words on peoples mouths...

Am I putting words into people’s mouths? :

Quote:

What you are suggesting is a conspiracy involving ex-lovers to undertakers...I think we are getting into JFK territory where everyone has to be involved for this conspiracy to work.

Quote:

But of course it was all part of the conspiracy.

Quote:

Not sure if you want to push this, since your conspiracy theory has gaping holes in it.

I'll respond to your other posts in time, Steadmund, if that's all right with you.

Hi conspiracy debunkers.

It’s funny how some people jump on an argument, in this case that witnesses were probably paid to provide evidence that Tumblety was insane, label it “a conspiracy theory” and then, for whatever reason, believe that they have disproved the argument. High fives all around. In actual fact it’s just another example of intellectual laziness or, perhaps, the inability to debate the facts.

The word “conspiracy,” according to my OED, means simply to “conspire,” or to “combine [as in a group] for unlawful purposes.” That seems fairly simple and straightforward but, to some, apparently, not.

As I pointed out in my last post, “conspiracies” to defraud wills in probate are nothing new. Charles A. Dunham made a living out of challenging wills, providing false witnesses and fake family members in order to illegally acquire a cut from wills that were in probate. This falls quite obviously within the definition of a “conspiracy.” By calling this fact merely a “conspiracy theory” doesn’t change that fact or disprove it.

Let me put this another way. The argument that witnesses lied during the 1905 trial has been dismissed as merely a “conspiracy theory.” That it is “getting into JFK territory where everyone has to be involved for this conspiracy to work.” But, as I also wrote, there were witnesses put forward by the lawyers of the St. Louis will who rebutted the testimony from the Tumblety family’s witnesses (as I also said, presumably about Tumblety’s physical attributes).

These witnesses, described as St. John’s Hospital physicians, nuns and the hospital’s chaplain, must have been lying IF the family’s witnesses were telling the truth. But that couldn’t have happened because that would be “getting into JFK territory where everyone has to be involved for this conspiracy to work.” Slippery slope?

I posted that “In all my hundreds of Tumblety newspaper clippings I can find no indication that anyone stated that Tumblety spoke with a “woman’s voice.” This is in fact true. You, however, state that I was, demonstrably, guilty of “cherry picking of the evidence.”

Please provide me, and everyone else, with the evidence that my files contain the Washington Post article, that I found it, yet ignored it, and that I, therefor attempted to mislead Dave, and anyone else who read my post.

Again, Wolf, I Agree with you, I probably did respond to early believing I was being accused of these things.. it may have been the timing on the posts. I can admit when I am wrong, and I apologize.. and please take your time in response to my posts, that is alright with me

I whole heartedly agree that some people who testified MAY have been paid off, a fact I think everyone would agree with.. and also that they were trying to prove him insane...again...everyone agrees, but the argument seems to be more than that..almost personal...and it really shouldn't be, there is nothing positive that can be gained from that

I am one of the very few people who HAS READ all this new info, and let me tell you...MANY of my beliefs and pre conceived ideas about Tumblety were shattered.. keep an open mind, you may be astounded, or once you see it you may poo poo it.. totally within your right....but don't judge prematurely...

And remember folks.. we are all suppose to be on the same team.. looking for the same thing... the truth..let's not forget that

Steadmund Brand

__________________
"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce

But, as I also wrote, there were witnesses put forward by the lawyers of the St. Louis will who rebutted the testimony from the Tumblety family’s witnesses (as I also said, presumably about Tumblety’s physical attributes).

These witnesses, described as St. John’s Hospital physicians, nuns and the hospital’s chaplain, must have been lying IF the family’s witnesses were telling the truth.

Wolf.

I believe the undertaker who prepared Tumblety's body also testified to Tumblety's physical attributes. The variety of witnesses to his condition make it more believable to me at least.

It is not historically valid to refer to one crooked lawyer in a long forgotten probate case (among hundreds of thousands of other probate cases without a hint of impropriety) and then transpose this slur onto the present case. You are still require to show evidence or even plausibility of corruption.

Many years ago I had the pleasure of knowing, for a short time, a man with many years of experience on the bench. He once told me in that in all the dozens upon dozens of probate cases brought before him over the years, in only one single solitary instance did a will go uncontested. It is an extremely common event.

Michael Fitzsimmons was a highly respected man in Rochester, New York. He was well-read, a member of two literary societies, the Shakespeare club, and was active in local politics. There is no hint of any criminal record on his part. The mere fact that he pursued this probabate case on behalf of his extended family--who were the rightful heirs-- is not the least bit untoward or suspicious, and the idea that he and his lawyers would pay-off dozens of different witnesses and parade them before the court without a peep of it coming to the attention of the opposing legal council--not to mention the judge--- doesn't strike me as a working theory based on "healthy skepticism" but, rather, wild conjecture.

By the way, what Wolf V. forgets to meniton is that we know that Charles Dunham was involved in falsfying evidence BECAUSE HE WAS CAUGHT OUT AND EXPOSED.

Not a peep of that it the present case, of course.

But let's chose a different angle. The average citizen in the 1905 was pretty naive about sexuality and certainly about homosexuality, etc. There are 1,001 different ways to claim a guy is crazy, and make it sound pretty darn plausible. But Mike FitzSimmons and his lawyers just happen to come up with the unheard of diagnosis of hermaphroditism and figured that this was the sure fire way of proving that the old guy was nuts?? Are you kidding me? We are supposed to believe that they hoped the judge might have read Krafft-Ebing (in the original German, no doubt) and would make the remarkable leap that this was sure fire proof that Frank Tumilty was mentally unfit to make out a will? If that's plausible, I'm Donald Swanson.

There was a total of 46 sworn testimonies and depositions; almost all were to explain Tumblety's state of mind WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF HIS DEATH when he was involved with writing the 1903 St. Louis will. If the attorneys were attempting to demonstrate Tumblety was insane because of his lifelong intersex condition, his connection with the Whitechapel murders, and his homosexuality, these issues would have been in a high percentage of the testimonies, yet they were not. The attorneys, and the judge for that matter, was only concerned about the last couple of years. On occasion (especially depositions), the witness discussed their relationship with Dr. T for the last 20 years in order to show that his behavior changed in the last couple of years of his life.

Interestingly, the undertaker, Mr. Nash, gave two sworn testimonies. When Nash commented upon Tumblety's intersex condition, it was when he gave a deposition to attorneys on November 4, 1904. The other attorney did indeed object to a couple of comments, but not the intersex condition comment. When Nash was in front of the probate judge in St. Louis on May 2, 1905, neither attorney asked him about his intersex condition. Point: The judge NEVER heard about the intersex condition, thus, it was not used to determine a lifelong mental condition. In fact, when the attorney asked the St. John's Hospital physician about his hermaphrodite condition, the judge stated it was irrelevant to the case, so they stopped with absolutely no objections.

So, while it's true the 25 relatives were attempting to demonstrate Tumblety was not of sound mind and body, it was ONLY through his mental state in the last two years of his life as compared to the last twenty years.

Keep in mind, they had well over 40 witnesses, which included a priest, two nuns, a mayor, a judge, and four attorneys. Do you honest believe these credible people would have received pay to lie under oath in front of the probate judge? One of them was Baltimore attorney Frank Widner, who Tim Riordan claimed was above reproach. He was very detailed in his comments upon Tumblety's misogyny. Norris, by the way, worked for the New Orleans Police Department for decades with his brother. They received awards for their achievements and were very respected. Norris was responsible for the classified cable transmission going to the Chief of Police. He does not sound like a liar to me.

Two weeks gone and I’m still waiting for you to provide the evidence that my files contained the Washington Post article, that I found it, yet ignored it, and that I, therefor attempted to mislead people with my post. Are you still looking? Or what? Can’t wait to see what you will come up with.

By the way, I did subsequently find the Washington Post article online. There’s an interesting thing: remember I was pointing out that the physical descriptions of Tumblety given in the depositions did not seem to be supported by hundreds of newspaper articles, printed over more than a 50 year span? Remember that Tumblety’s supposed womanish figure was not supported anywhere? Well, what do you think Mr. Palmer decided not to mention from the Washington Post article? The line “Dr. Tumblety is an enormous man, over six feet in height, with broad shoulders.” Why not, since that was one of the things we were discussing? Looks like cherry picking to me. Want to comment?

It is not historically valid to refer to one crooked lawyer in a long forgotten probate case (among hundreds of thousands of other probate cases without a hint of impropriety) and then transpose this slur onto the present case. You are still require to show evidence or even plausibility of corruption.

Some things never change. Missing my point being a constant. I originally pointed out that there were inconsistencies with some of the testimony given at the 1905 Tumblety probate trial. Evidence?: Physical descriptions don’t seem to match those in hundreds of newspaper articles (I gave newspapers and dates for anyone who wanted to check out); Richard Norris’s deposition seems full of errors and lies (I commented on some of this over on the “Tumblety: The Hidden Truth” board and will go into more detail here) and, with a large fortune at stake, paid testimony seems to explain this. I was told that this was only conspiracy theorizing (by you amongst others). I then pointed out that shady probate cases did (and probably still do) exist and gave an example proving that “conspiracies,” especially over money, are nothing new. If you want to attempt to twist what I wrote well, that’s something that never seems to change either.

Quote:

Many years ago I had the pleasure of knowing, for a short time, a man with many years of experience on the bench. He once told me in that in all the dozens upon dozens of probate cases brought before him over the years, in only one single solitary instance did a will go uncontested. It is an extremely common event.

Proving, what, exactly? In order for a valid comparison, how many of those contested probate cases had the same circumstances as the 1905 Tumblety case? How many were attempting to prove non compos mentis? How many of them had fabricated testimony? Do you actually believe that there is never any fabricated testimony in a last ditch fight for a share in a large fortune? You’ll have to prove that.

Quote:

Michael Fitzsimmons was a highly respected man in Rochester, New York. He was well-read, a member of two literary societies, the Shakespeare club, and was active in local politics. There is no hint of any criminal record on his part. The mere fact that he pursued this probabate case on behalf of his extended family--who were the rightful heirs-- is not the least bit untoward or suspicious, and the idea that he and his lawyers would pay-off dozens of different witnesses and parade them before the court without a peep of it coming to the attention of the opposing legal council--not to mention the judge--- doesn't strike me as a working theory based on "healthy skepticism" but, rather, wild conjecture.

Mr. Palmer, you have become confused here. Michael Fitsimmons did not pursue “the probate case on behalf of his extended family.” He did not have to “pay-off dozens of different witnesses and parade them before the court” because he was, in fact, “the opposing legal council (sic)”.

Fitzsimmons’s wife Mary was to inherit $10,000 from the contested St. Louis will. She was one of the defendants named in the suit by the family members who were attempting to overturn the St. Louis will by trying to prove that Tumblety was insane. Fitzsimmons was supporting the St. Louis will and opposing the non compos mentis suit so, no, he didn’t pay witnesses for their testimony.

Quote:

By the way, what Wolf V. forgets to meniton is that we know that Charles Dunham was involved in falsfying evidence BECAUSE HE WAS CAUGHT OUT AND EXPOSED.
Not a peep of that it the present case, of course.

Actually, Dunham was involved in several successful probate scams without being “caught out.” And is there no “peep of that” in the present case or do you just ignore the possibility?

Quote:

But let's chose a different angle. The average citizen in the 1905 was pretty naive about sexuality and certainly about homosexuality, etc. There are 1,001 different ways to claim a guy is crazy, and make it sound pretty darn plausible. But Mike FitzSimmons and his lawyers just happen to come up with the unheard of diagnosis of hermaphroditism and figured that this was the sure fire way of proving that the old guy was nuts?? Are you kidding me? We are supposed to believe that they hoped the judge might have read Krafft-Ebing (in the original German, no doubt) and would make the remarkable leap that this was sure fire proof that Frank Tumilty was mentally unfit to make out a will? If that's plausible, I'm Donald Swanson.

Ignoring the Michael Fitzsimmons faux pas again, the above suggests that you are unwilling to admit the probate case was about proving Tumblety was insane in order to get at his money, or that you are only paying lip service to this fact. Either way, the fact remains that hermaphroditism/morphism was seen as a sign of insanity in 1905 and testimony that Tumblety supposedly was a hermaphrodite/morphodite was offered in a probate case that was trying to prove Tumblety insane. If you can’t see the connection you may want to ask your “man with many years of experience on the bench” how many probate cases involved a mortician describing the penis of the dead man. Was that “an extremely common event”?